Protests against the rival authorities in Gaza and the West Bank haven’t become the kind of full-scale revolts that hit Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Yemen and Syria. But there is a growing sense that the leaderships of both Fatah (in charge in the West Bank) and Hamas (which controls Gaza) have lost much of their legitimacy.

Mired in corruption and addicted to repression, neither has been able to develop a credible strategy for the 4 million Palestinians caught in a limbo created by post-colonial history and the Cold War.

The first sign that things might be changing came this week with the announcement that top Hamas leader Khalid al-Meshaal is to step down after 16 years, triggering a succession race.

Meshaal has had to leave Damascus (after 13 years) because he indicated support for the Syrian uprising. People close to him claim that he’s had “offers of welcome” from Egypt’s new President Mohammed Morsi as well as the emir of Qatar, Sheik Hamad al-Thani.

A native of the West Bank, Meshaal has already ruled out moving to Gaza, where he’d be surrounded by rivals and even enemies. He holds a Jordanian passport, but could only settle in Amman with the understanding that he cease all political activity.

But those who hope Meshaal will fade away may be disappointed.

On the surface, three camps are involved in the fight over Meshaal’s succession.

The first consists of Hamas “government” apparatchiks who wish to keep their privileges. They control part of the international aid from the United States and the European Union, and also cash checks from “well-wishers” such as Iran. This mafia also controls the black market and the flow of contraband goods to Gaza.

The apparatchiks’ candidate is Mussa Abumarzouq, who held the post in the 1990s. A US citizen, he was arrested in New York in 1996 on terrorist charges — and was released and deported in exchange for giving up his citizenship.

The second camp consists of mid-level activists. Their candidate is Mahmoud al-Zuhar, who is also supported by the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. (His mother is Egyptian.)

To counter that Egyptian influence, Iran is promoting a third candidate: Ismail Haniyeh, who heads the administration in Gaza.

Morsi wants to control Hamas to prevent Gaza from becoming an Iranian base. He also hopes to play the Palestinian card to gain traction in relations with the United States, Israel and the Saudis.

For its part, Iran is doing all it can to keep Gaza as one of the two arms of a pincer (the other being Hezbollah-controlled southern Lebanon) against Israel. If Iran loses its influence with Hamas, it would find it hard to use the Palestinian theme to attract an audience among Arabs.

But Meshaal could upset the burgeoning Irano-Egyptian rivalry for control of Hamas. First, he may promote an alternative candidate, seeking support from Gazans fed up with the Hamas leadership’s corruption and brutality. One name mentioned is that of Salih al-Arouri, a former prisoner in Israel who also hails from the West Bank.

A second, and more intriguing, option: Meshaal could seek the leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organization as a first step toward melding Fatah with Hamas to create a new united Palestinian movement.

With its chief Mahmoud Abbas anxious to throw in the towel and not a single candidate to replace him, Fatah is in search of a leader.

Meshaal could fill that gap while reasserting the primacy of the West Bankers (a majority of Palestinians) in setting the national agenda. He has the added advantage of access to sources of funding via Saudi Arabia and other oil-rich Arab states.

Such a strategy would enable the Palestinians to transcend the Fatah-Hamas rivalry, which has brought political paralysis.

Fatah has promised peace with Israel without getting an inch closer to achieving it. Hamas is even further from delivering on its promise of wiping Israel off the map.

Worse still for both groups, there is no evidence that a majority of Palestinians, their daily problems notwithstanding, are ready to jettison the status quo to gamble on either a problematic peace or a foredoomed war.